4.  The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows.
5.  The applicant was born in 1938 and lives in Haskovo. In 1991 the applicant’s husband died, leaving his wife and his brother as his only heirs.
6.  On 17 January 1994 the applicant brought an action against her husband’s brother with the Haskovo District Court, seeking partition of their common inheritance.
7.  Between March 1994 and February 1995 the court held four hearings. By a judgment of 13 February 1995 it allowed the partition of the second floor of a house, of a garage and a car, determined the parties’ shares and ordered that the use of all the items be granted to the applicant for the course of the proceedings. In the same judgment the court dismissed the action for partition of the first floor of the same house, finding that the first floor belonged solely to the respondent.
8.  The applicant filed an appeal with the Haskovo Regional Court, arguing, inter alia, that the District Court should have allowed the partition of the first floor.
9.  By a judgment of 22 May 1995 the Regional Court quashed the judgment of the District Court as regards the partition of the house, announced a hearing on the merits and appointed three experts to prepare a report on certain aspects of the partition of the house.
10.  Between May 1995 and June 1996 the court held four hearings where, in particular, it examined the expert report and heard the experts. By a judgment of 4 June 1996 the court allowed the partition only of the second floor of the house and determined the parties’ shares.
11.  By a judgment of 19 December 1996 the Supreme Court of Cassation dismissed the applicant’s ensuing appeal.
12.  On 21 April 1997 the applicant filed a request for reopening of the partition proceedings with the Supreme Court of Cassation which was rejected by a judgment of 16 June 1998.
13.  In relation to this phase of the partition proceedings on 16 February 1999 the applicant brought a declaratory action, seeking to establish criminal conduct on the part of the experts, in that by acting with negligence they had presented false reports before the court (a crime under Article 291 § 2 of the Criminal Code). In case such conduct was established, the applicant could have sought reopening of the case. Following proceedings before three instances, by a final judgment of 4 April 2006 the Supreme Court of Cassation dismissed the action.
14.  Neither the applicant, nor the Government specify the date on which the second phase of the partition proceedings began before the Haskovo District Court. It appears from the parties’ submissions that it was not later than 16 October 1998. Until December 2001 the court listed nine hearings. One was adjourned for collection of additional evidence, three were adjourned for reasons related to the experts and two more for reasons related to the respondent. During some of the hearings the applicant unsuccessfully requested the court to stay the proceedings in order to await the outcome of the proceedings seeking to establish criminal conduct on the part of the experts.
15.  By a judgment of 5 December 2001 the District Court allotted the second floor of the house to the applicant, allotted the garage to the respondent and ordered the applicant to make payment for levelling away the differences in the respondent’s share.
16.  The District Court held an additional hearing on 12 April 2002 in respect of the car. By a judgment of 18 June 2002 the court ordered that the car be auctioned off and determined the parties’ shares in this respect.
17.  On 22 July 2002 the applicant filed an appeal against the two judgments before the Haskovo Regional Court. By a judicial order of 31 October 2002 the appeal was returned to the applicant, as she allegedly failed to pay the court fee. Upon the applicant’s appeal, by a final decision of 26 June 2003 the Regional Court quashed the order and ruled on the continuation of the proceedings.
18.  Following the applicant’s request, on 25 February 2004 the partition proceedings before the Regional Court were stayed in order to await the outcome of the proceedings, seeking a declaration of criminal conduct on the part of the experts (see paragraph 13 above).
19.  On 2 November 2006 the court resumed the partition proceedings. Between November 2006 and January 2008 the court held five hearings. The court adjourned the case three times for reasons related to the experts.
20.  By a judgment of 28 January 2008 the Regional Court quashed the lower instance judgments and allotted the second floor of the house to the applicant and the garage with the car to the respondent.
21.  On 28 February 2008 the applicant filed a cassation appeal. On 10 March 2008 the court ordered the applicant to pay the court fee. The applicant fails to provide information about the course of the proceedings between March 2008 and July 2009. By a final judgment of 5 January 2010 the Supreme Court of Cassation dismissed the applicant’s appeal and upheld the lower court’s judgment.
22.  Meanwhile, in April 2008 the applicant filed another request for reopening of the partition proceedings in its first phase to the Supreme Court of Cassation which was rejected by a final judgment of 24 June 2009.